Latest related coverage

IT WAS always going to get nasty, but no one expected this much heat. The ABC has this week been left reeling from the response to Bastard Boys, its dramatisation of the 1998 waterfront dispute.

Former ACTU secretary Bill Kelty has threatened legal action over his portrayal in the series, arguing it is inaccurate. Others, such as lawyer Josh Bornstein and former MUA head John Coombs, have spoken out about their disappointment at the fictionalised account of one of the country's most bitter industrial disputes.

The series has clearly re-opened old wounds, with many players emotional about reliving the bitter and protracted dispute. It may also have strained friendships between comrades, with some in the union movement rejecting the portrayal of Greg Combet as the mastermind behind the industrial campaign, minimising the contribution from Kelty and John Coombs.

Yesterday Kelty told The Age he wanted people to understand only two things about the series: "That there is not one thing involving me that's the truth and that it is a fictionalised account."

Kelty also says that the series grossly underestimated the role of Coombs in running the dispute and that Combet did not approach him at the end saying he would "knock me off", as was shown in the series.

Coombs said he was particularly disappointed at how Kelty was portrayed.

In a letter to the ABC's managing director, Mark Scott, Kelty says the series shows him saying things that are simply not true and that he felt compelled to reserve his rights to legal action.

Kelty says he had asked the ABC for a clearly worded disclaimer at the start of the series explaining the show was a fictionalised account of the dispute and that it had provided this. However, he said he was keeping his legal options open.

"I'll be having a look at what the consequences are. People who know me know that I'm neither precious nor litigious."

Josh Bornstein, now a partner at the law firm Maurice Blackburn Cashman, says he is still recovering from the experience of watching the show. Bornstein says his main hope is that people will understand it was not all factual.

He says he would never have behaved in the way his fictional character did in much of the series.

Bornstein is portrayed as joining the striking workers at the waterfront pickets, something he would have been barred from doing by a legal injunction. He also swears almost constantly throughout the series and at one point collapses after a meeting to vomit into the gutter.

The ABC's response to the attacks has been to stick to the line that it is a drama, not a documentary, and that this is made clear by a disclaimer at the beginning of each episode. But the broadcaster's grasp of the high moral ground may be somewhat shaky given at least two of the major players in the dispute pushed hard behind the scenes for the disclaimer.

The disclaimer read: "The drama Bastard Boys is a dramatised account of the 1998 waterfront dispute. While based on real people and events, the characters, conversations and events depicted are wholly or partly fictional and do not necessarily reflect actual people and events."

At the heart of the matter is the question of fact versus fiction; will viewers understand this is a fictionalised account of a true event, or has the ABC rewritten history in the minds of the average viewer?

In the series, the characters have the same names as the real-life players and look obviously similar to them. Many of the key players in the dispute were heavily consulted during the lengthy research for the show, with Bornstein interviewed for more than four hours by the show's writer, Sue Smith.

Consultation, however, does not necessarily mean control. Bornstein says that after seeing the script he and Greg Combet were disturbed by the amount of swearing attributed to them. He says, however, that after a debate with Smith he raised the white flag.

The script was sent to Bornstein, Combet and Coombs. Bornstein declined to name any other objections he had, saying he had great respect for Smith.

Kelty was apparently one of the few players not to have seen a script before the series went to air and says he does not recall ever being contacted. "I would have thought they'd talk to you about it if you're in it."

Kelty also rejects the show's portrayal of him handing over the day-to-day running of the dispute to Combet and says Combet never ran meetings at the ACTU as the series depicts. "I ran the ACTU meetings, not Greg Combet."

In a statement to The Age yesterday, the ABC's head of drama, Miranda Dear, said the main players in the dispute had the opportunity to read the script and provide their comments that the producer took on board. She said many of the participants visited the set during filming.

Dear said: "Bastard Boys was conceived, written and funded as a drama, not a documentary or a doco-drama. It is part of the ABC's charter to reflect Australian social, cultural and political life and we believe Bastard Boys has achieved this. It has successfully engaged our audience and begun the debate."

Part of this was echoed yesterday by Combet, now the preselected ALP candidate for the seat of Charlton in Newcastle, who told The Age that it needed to be remembered the series is a drama not a documentary. But he also describes it as an entertaining show.

"The events were much as shown in the TV show, but the characters and the script are dramatised," he says.

Former Patrick chief Chris Corrigan, on holiday in Europe, is reported to have labelled the show "a boring tale of class warfare", also taking issue with the accuracy of its portrayal. In comments emailed to the Crikey website, Corrigan says, "The program portrays a series of predictable stereotypes and silly caricatures and gives them real names then cleverly claims to be a drama and hence does not explore any inconvenient truths such as the impact of the waterfront rorts on ordinary Australians."

Down at the waterfront, some workers - who did not want to be named - were also critical of stereotyping in the miniseries.

One dock worker, who joined Patrick a year before the dispute, said he didn't find the portrayal of wharfies very accurate.

"I didn't like the way the wharfies were portrayed in the first episode - they looked like bogans," he said. "They are just normal run-of-the-mill guys, no different to anyone you would meet in the street. The show made them seem a bit dumb. There were too many vulgarities."

But he welcomed the program as it reminded the country of the divisive dispute and reignited debate.

"It's remarkable timing with the current debate on WorkChoices - it's about everyone's working lives and futures."

It is a sentiment echoed by Maritime Union of Australia Victorian branch secretary Kevin Bracken.

"It didn't portray wharfies in a very good light," Bracken says. "In the first episode not one wharfie put a sentence together and in every photograph they have a beer in their hand. It wasn't like that.

"It just played into those stereotypes that the Government was trying to put forward at the time."

However, another dock worker, who joined Patrick about five years before the dispute, found the drama "pretty realistic especially where (former Patrick boss Chris) Corrigan was appealing for a Federal Court injunction. It shows the doggedness of our ex-boss and the Government in collusion."

He also welcomed the program, particularly in light of the current industrial relations debate. He said it brought back all old emotions and sparked a healthy debate, even within his own family.